[NTLUG:Discuss] Texas: SB1116 / HB2121

[Rob Apodaca]

[...]
> * The bill's broad language makes it a crime to modify your
> internet-connected computer in any way that your service provider does
> not approve of. It is so broad that it could apply to many electronic
> communications practices, software, and devices commonly used in homes
> and for sale at stores.
> * The bill would interfere with legitimate academic and commercial
> research and innovation, by prohibiting the development and distribution
> of plans for "unauthorized access devices."
> * The bill has excessive civil and criminal penalties that take the law
> into private hands and that are far out of proportion to the offenses.
> The bill would open the door for a barrage of litigation by industry
> against individuals and between competitors. This litigation would be
> complicated by areas of overlap and contradiction with federal laws.
> * The bill would promote anti-competitive practices by large
> communication services, such as tying proprietary products to
> communications services.  It would, in effect, return us to the day when
> everyone had to rent telephones from the telephone company.
> * Similar broad laws are already interfering with legitimate business
> and research activities in this country.
[...]

I must say that since I first read this bill, the language has improved
greatly.
(located here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/78R/billtext/SB01116I.HTM )

I'm no legal expert, but honestly the bill doesn't look all that bad <ducks>.

It used to say "...conceal from a communication service provider, or from any
lawful
authority..." - basically 'outlawed' NAT routers.

Now it says "...with the intent to harm or defraud a communication
service...".

It would seem that the spririt of the law is to help ISP's enforce their EULA.
INTENT is a very important word here because in order to be convicted of a
crime outlined in this bill, it has to be proven that your intent was to 'harm
or defraud'. To me, if the ISP authorizes only one machine, and you put a NAT
router between your machine and the connection, then there is no 'Intent to
harm or defraud'.

If an ISP is so restrictive as to not allow you to put multiple computers on
one connection, then that sucks - but that is their choice to make. One can
always change ISP's.

My .02

-Rob